Just For The Record

Having watched the liberal take on the hanging of Saddam Hussein, I've noted that liberal pundits and pollsters who are on the news consistently harken back to the fact that Osama bin Laden hasn't been captured or killed. I guess they cite this because they're trying to denigrate the importance of Saddam's execution. It matters not. It is an important event, one that shows that sometimes justice does get served. As for Osama bin Laden, I'm stating once again that....he's dead. What is my proof? It's all circumstantial, I admit. But ask yourself: When was the last time you saw bin Laden on video? Sure, he releases an audiotape ever six or so months. But how come his spiritual leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is always making videos (every month or two, it seems), but bin Laden never does? The CIA claims that these OBL audiotapes are, in fact, bin Laden. But then, how much faith can you put into an intelligence agency that a.) Predicted in 1980 that the USSR had a GDP of 3%-4% a year, which was a greater economic expansion than the U.S. b.) That was wholly surprised by the collapse of the Soviet Union in '91, as well as the crumbling of the Soviet Bloc in '89 c.) Failed to key into the 9/11 attacks, which were three years in the making? The CIA was gutted in the mid-70's, and it has never recovered. Maybe if a guy like James Jesus Angleton were still operating at CIA, I'd have some faith in their analysis. But....he's not.

Osama bin Laden is dead. Until I see his mug on a video, I'm assuming that I'm right. History will bear it out. And if I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Until then, I'm stickin' to my theory.

James Brown

I'm a nominal fan of James Brown, having been introduced to his music in college in the late-80's. I played in a cover band that did "Papa's Got A Brand New Bag" and "Sex Machine", though we were clearly stiff, white, and not particularly funky. (We tried...) That said, one thing that struck me about James Brown's music were the rhythmic off-beats and the hypnotic nature of his songs. It was good stuff musically, and to my mind, in the same way that Frank Sinatra isn't really talked about for his musical ability, ditto goes for James Brown. The image and the public persona overshadowed his innovation, though it shouldn't. He was a grounbreaking songwriter, using drums and horns in ways that nobody had ever used them before. Legend has it that if he had inspiration for his music, even in the middle of the night, he'd call his entire band into the studio on the spot to record. Sometimes he'd do the same while on the road. He'd stop the bus in some town on the way to a gig, find a studio in that town, and lay it down.

I never saw James Brown. I wish I had, and when I had the chance a few years back (he was playing at B.B. King's Club in NYC), the ticket price was pretty stiff ($80), so I passed. In the end, it was my loss.

Saddam Bites The Dust

Not much more to add than what has already been reported widely regarding this event. I do think that David Pryce-Jones (National Review) correctly captures the sentiment well. (Read here.) I can't help but think that, in the same way that every communist apparatchik felt a shock of terror for their own fate as they got wind of Nicolae Ceaucescu's execution, that every Islamic dictator/terrorist in the Middle East feels at least a similar tinge of fright that their fate will be similar. Probably not, but it clearly is in the realm of possibilities for the likes of Ahmedinejad, Assad, or Khadafy. As Churchill so aptly put it, "Dictators ride astride the backs of tigers they dare not dismount, for the tigers are hungry..."

Merry Christmas To All....

....and to all, a good night.

Associated Press Source, "Jamil Hussein" Still Missing

Not reported very much in the mainstream media is the story of Jamil Hussein. As I've written about previously, Jamil Hussein was/is supposedly a Baghdad police officer who Associated Press has quoted in approximately forty published dispatches. He has been protrayed as a "primary source" in all of these stories. The latest dispatch, which claimed that Sunni extremists firebombed a Shiite mosque, burning to death six Shia, has been called into question, as neither CENTCOM nor the Iraqi government has verified that this event happened. Actually, they've said it didn't happen. The writer of the blog Flopping Aces first got suspicious about this story and implored Associated Press to verify the existence of Jamil Hussein and his credibility as a witness. To date, Associated Press has yet to present Jamil Hussein to the skeptics in the blogosphere. Michelle Malkin has joined in with the search. Still no Jamil Hussein.

This story is an even bigger story than the Dan Rather faked memos ("Memogate") story because Associated Press is the biggest news agency in the world. Check any paper in America, and you're sure to find more than a few stories that say "From AP" or "AP Dispatch" at the end of them. This is true of even the biggest newspapers in America, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. If all newspapers in America get their news from AP, at least partially, what does that say about the quality and veracity of American journalism if the largest news agency in the world is perpetuating a fraud? Dan Rather took down CBS News with his vicious prevarication. This Associated Press story, if Jamil Hussein cannot be produced, can potentially take down the entire American journalism industry.

Time Magazine's "Person of the Year"...

....is you!

Feel honored? Next year, it might be this person.

Another Notable Passing

“Kirkpatski! Kirkpatski! I have so wanted to meet you and thank you in person. Your name is known in all the Gulag.”

--Andrei Sakharov, Soviet Dissident

I filched that quote from Jay Nordlinger's latest NRO column, but it matters not. "Kirkpatski" was actually Jeanne Kirkpatrick, the former Ambassador to the United Nations who served under Reagan. Kirkpatrick passed away on December 7th of this year, aged 80. She was a tireless advocate for international human rights, having read out loud, on the floor of the United Nations, the names of actual Soviet dissidents then under arrest or imprisoned. She well understood the Soviet communist mind, as well as the sick left-wingers who sympathized with it and its nefarious machinations. Quoth Kirkpatrick, "When Marxist dictators shoot their way into power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don't blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies. They blame United States policies of 100 years ago. But then they always blame America first." True in the 80's...and true now. (Witness the present-day leftist love affair with Hugo Chavez.) She also understood the United Nations as it really was (and continues to be today): "As I watched the behavior of the nations of the U.N. (including our own), I found no reasonable ground to expect any one of those governments to transcend permanently their own national interests for those of another country."

Rest in peace, Jeane Kirkpatrick.

Noteable Passing

Milton Friedman, free market economist, Nobel laureate, and pre-eminent scholar, passed about a week ago, aged 91. His book, Free To Choose, was proof of the power of the written word and how it can change the world. His free-market philosophies were instrumental in shaping the policies of Ronald Reagan, which subsequently led to an American economic renaissance. (Reference a chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average going back ninety years, and you'll see what I mean. The Dow was unable to break 1000 for three-plus decades; after 1982, it broke 1000 and never looked back.) Additionally, nations that espoused his economic philosophies like Estonia, Chile, and Iceland have prospered accordingly, and have put themselves in a considerably more competitive position than their socialist counterparts.

All Americans owe him a debt of gratitude....even left-wing ones. (Although hell will freeze over before they do that!)

Still Nonplussed....

...about this story regarding Princess Diana and the U.S. Secret Service bugging her.

Murder Inc.

On the heels of the mushy, compromising Iraqi Study Group report, the great Victor Davis Hanson puts it all in perspective:

In this new realist push, amid constant reminders that we once talked to the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan is often evoked-but not the Ronald Reagan who in a high-stakes effort, fraught with risk, pushed the Soviet Union to the brink, or bombed Tripoli to remind Khadafi of the consequences of his terror, but apparently the Ronald Reagan who abruptly left Lebanon and allowed surrogates to talk with Iran to trade arms for hostages.

So the new revisionist image is perhaps that Reagan was a sort of realist who accepted the world as it was, and avoided the zealotry associated with the sweeping Axis of Evil rhetoric of George Bush. But I remember another "evil empire" Reagan who sought to address bluntly wrong as he saw it. And I was reminded of that when glancing at old news accounts such as the following 1985 New York Times piece that started, "President Reagan today characterized Iran, Libya, North Korea, Cuba and Nicaragua as ''a confederation of terrorist states'' that had carried out ''outright acts of war'' against the United States. The President said the five nations were ''a new, international version of Murder Inc.''

"Murder Incorporated" then sounded a lot like "Axis of Evil" does now.

And re: Iraq. I remember as well the old conventional wisdom that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a terrorist haven. As far back as 1990, Congressman Broomfield, for example, inserted the following into the Congressional Record, " New reports reveal that in the past few months, the Iraqi leader has built a network of old and new terrorist allies who could be called upon to conduct terrorist operations against American interests. Among Saddam's new friends are notorious terrorists Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and Abu Iyad—all star performers in the sordid world of international terrorism. As many as 1,400 terrorist operatives may now be living in Iraq as guests of Saddam Hussein. Iraqi involvement with terrorist groups is so extensive that the Department of State recently put Iraq back on the list of countries that support terrorism."

More Fakery In The Mainstream Media

For those of you who read this blog, I feel it necessary to communicate or pass along stories that I come across through my internet reading. I'm fairly certain that the majority of you are not aware of this story, as it has only been percolating in the blogosphere and nowhere else. For the last few years, there's been an Associated Press source by the name of Jamil Hussein, who allegedly is a member of the Iraqi Police Force. Mr. Hussein has consistently handed over stories to AP regarding acts of terrorism, sectarian violence, and things of this nature. Recently, Mr. Hussein told AP (which AP communicated through its media tentacles) of six Sunnis were burned to death in a mosque by Shia terrorists. There's one problem with this story: the Iraqi police and U.S. forces in Iraq say it never happened. Worse than that, the Iraqi police claim that Mr. Hussein is not on the Iraqi Police Force (as AP claimed), and frankly, don't even know if this person exists. AP, of course, stands by their story. This comes on the heels of another AP scandal involving a source, named Bilal Hussein. This particular Mr. Hussein, a photographer and reporter, seemed to have a strange way of being in or around al Qaeda types. He was inevitably arrested in Fallujah in a bomb factory, with a known al Qaeda bomb-maker, and had traces of explosive material on his clothes and hands. Nice. You can read all about it here.

The conclusion? It is becoming readily apparent that the Islamo-terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere had a willing propaganda arm in the Associated Press. This is extraordinarily disturbing, as a major international news organization, perhaps the largest, is knowingly printing unverified stories of atrocities from shady (if not non-existent) sources, and also printing pictures taken by known terrorist sympathizers (as is the case of Bilal Hussein). What is really happening on the ground in Iraq? Hard to say, but the best I can advise to anyone reading this blog on a regular basis is to not trust anything printed by the Associated Press, the New York Times, Reuters, or the BBC. All of the aforementioned have been found guilty of trafficking in leaked stories compromising U.S. war efforts, communicating terrorist propaganda, and knowingly printing fake and/or staged photos (as was the case during the brief Israeli/Hezbollah conflagration).

There was a time when I was in college (and green as a blade of grass) when I aspired to be a journalist, specifically one that would go to dangerous, far-away locations and dodge bullets in pursuit of a story. It sounded dashing and romantic at the time, and on some level, it still does. But given the real state of western journalism, I thank my lucky stars that I didn't. Western journalists aren't truth seekers. It is apparent now that they are haters of the West, specifically America and Israel, and feel a duty to communicate propaganda, publish photoshopped pics, print stories of dubious veracity, and splatter leaked government anti-terrorist actions onto their front pages....and compromise the safety of Americans in the process. Western journalists appear to want to save the world from American and Israeli hegemony, and will bed down with the worst bloodthirty gutterspines in the world to do it. (Kind of like Jimmy Carter...)

For shame.

More Woes For The New York Times

Whilst "Pinch" Sulzberger, the baby-boomer snot who lucked out by being born into the Times-owning family who's name he bears, runs the brand into the ground, the Wall Street wolves are gathering outside the house of the Old Grey Lady. This time, it's not just Morgan Stanley Asset Management that is agitating to knock off the boy-king, but now Hank Greenberg, the erstwhile CEO of AIG, is champing at the bit. Read about it here.

Proof Yet Again That Reagan Had Nothing To Do With The Collapse Of The USSR....

Read all about how the American arms build-up had nothing to do with bankrupting the Soviets here. In related news, the U.S. Constitution would've been written pretty much the same without Alexander Hamilton, and Germany would've went Nazi even without Hitler. Also, the Yankees would've won the 1977 World Series without Reggie Jackson, and the Civil War would've been won for the Union without Abe Lincoln's stewardship.

The Last Words Of Alexander Litvinenko

Murdered Russian Alexander Litvinenko, critic of Vladimir Putin and avowed democrat (note small 'd') made this signed statement shortly before he passed away:

I would like to thank many people. My doctors, nurses and hospital staff who are doing all they can for me; the British police who are pursuing my case with vigor and professionalism and are watching over me and my family. I would like to thank the British government for taking me under their care. I am honored to be a British citizen.
I would like to thank the British public for their messages of support and for the interest they have shown in my plight.
I thank my wife, Marina, who has stood by me. My love for her and our son knows no bounds.
But as I lie here, I can distinctly hear the beating of wings of the angel of death. I may be able to give him the slip but I have to say my legs do not run as fast as I would like. I think, therefore, that this may be the time to say one or two things to the person responsible for my present condition.
You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed.
You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilized value.
You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilized men and women.
You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr. Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life. May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people.

Fill In The Blanks

A former Russian spy and sharp critic of Vladimir Putin, Alexander Litvinenko, gets poisoned to death in London. Mr. Litvinenko had an intense interest in revealing who murdered Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, who was just the latest in a string of Russian journalists who've been murdered in the last half-decade in and outside of Russia. Additionally, Boris Khodorkovsky, a billionaire critic and political rival of Vladimir Putin's, received 20 years for essentially trumped-up charges. At the same time, while Russia (and China) consistently block any sanctions against the soon-to-be nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran on the U.N. Security Council, they sell anti-aircraft missles to said Iranians. Putin has also dispatched the head of Russia nuclear agency to Iran this past week.

Draw your own conclusions from this, but these are mine:

Putin is consolidating his power by slowly but surely eliminating all dissent in the press, in business, or by Russian defectors. Putin is former KGB; he is a formidible man intellectually, and was inculcated with a cold-blooded, Stalinist ethic through his KGB experiences. He is clearly seeking to destroy Russian democracy (fragile as it is) internally, while he is using the Iranians to do his dirty work (i.e. wage jihad on the West). It would not surprise me to find out that Russia has increased its military budget significantly in the last five years. Where this leads to, I don't know. But it is no place desireable.

Funny Stuff

Parodies of those annoying Che Guevara t-shirts can be found here. Very entertaining.

Why We Won't Win (Until We Remember This....)

"War is cruel, and there's no use in trying to refine it. The more cruel it is, the sooner it is over."

--General William Tecumseh Sherman

Ralph Peters on Iraq

I take absolutely no stock in any left-wing op-ed writers at all when it comes to Bush, Iraq, terrorism, taxes, etc. So burdened are they with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) that they're incapable of saying anything cogent or truthful. Ralph Peters, ex-military and former intel operative, is a whole different kettle of fish. Much as it pains me to read his pieces, they're spot-on, honest, and at times, brutal. He is one of the few writers worth reading regarding the War on Terror, and he's worth the read if you really want to know what is going on in Iraq. Catch it here.

Retired Husband Syndrome....A Japanese Phenomenon

I picked this up from John Derbyshire of the National Review. Seems that there's a bit of a crisis going on amongst retired Japanese men and their spouses. The Japanese, noted for their intense work ethic (twelve hour days are de rigeur), spend the better part of their adult lives at work; home is for sleeping...nothing more. As a result, man and wife develop separate lives under the same roof over the course of decades. When the man retires, he drives his wife crazy. Or so it goes in Japan. You can read all about it here.

Random Thoughts 11/10/06

Ah....so much to talk about.....where to start?

Election:

• Well, I guess it had to happen sometime. Consistently sloppy behavior from the numbskull members of the Congressional GOP for starters. Let's round it all up: Foley, Ney, DeLay, Cunningham, topped off with Jack Abramoff with a cherry on top. As for Bush, I don't blame him for Katrina per se (the governor and the mayor, who were largely responsible for the evacuation, rescue, and security of New Orleans revealed themselves to be empty suits), but he underreact in the aftermath, and clearly did not show leadership. Bush's appointment of this "Brownie" character to FEMA, obviously a sinecure granted as a favor to someone, paid bitter dividends. (Patronage NEVER works!) The nation isn't angry at Bush because of Iraq (in my opinion), they're angry because we're not playing to win. (We're quite clearly playing not to lose...which inevitably leads to losing.) Kudos to the Dems for finding right-of-center Democrats to run, which inevitably lead them to their majorities in both the House and Senate. (I do like Jim Webb of Virginia, btw.) In the end, a lack of competition in the war of ideas leads to sloth and corruption, and the GOP needs to get back to their core values: cuttings government spending, cutting taxes, vigorous defense. I'm also starting to gravitate towards Pat Buchanan's philosophy that perhaps its time for America to withdraw from the world and stop being everyone's nanny. Western Europe, with their sanctimonious tut-tutting, should take the leadership with this stuff. No more Americans in Germany, South Korea, or the former Yugoslavia. In the abstract, all of these people hate us. In the real world however, they quiver at the thought that the blanket of security that we provide the Europeans and the Asians (South Korea in particular) could possibly be removed. I also think it is high-time that America consider suspending its active participation in the United Nations. If the world hates us for all that we do for it, perhaps they should taste the bitter fruits of a world without the United States protecting it. That's my two-cents on that note.

Other Stuff:

• I'm shocked, shocked at the news that Britney Spears and her "trash-tastic" (a New York Post phrase) hubby Kevin Federline are breaking up. I'm similarly shocked about the Ryan Philipe/Reese Witherspoon break-up. I'm also utterly amazed at the new shampoo I'm using...Pantene. I've never gotten more compliments about my hair. Awesome.

• I pulled back from reading anymore ancient history stuff written by ancient historians. I recently got the urge to read Herodotus' The Histories, which documents the Greco-Persion wars. Written approximately 2700 years ago, this work is considered the first historical document in history. But after slogging through Thucydides' History of the Pelopennian Wars, I just couldn't bring myself to read another 500 to 700 page tome that is the textual equivalent of eating sand. So I settled on reading some relatively light stuff, like Lance Armstrong's biographical It's Not About The Bike, Andy Summers' (of The Police) One Train Later, and Neil Peart's journal on touring with band (and in-between gigs) on motorcycle, Roadshow. What I read after this welterweight fare, I do not know. But at this point, I'm not sure I can read anything political or martial for a while, so I might stay in this relatively light-hearted zone for the time being. Truth be told, I'm in a better mood when I'm reading the lighter stuff.

• Very much looking forward to the Borat movie. Might catch it this weekend. Jeshamesh.

That's all for now, folks. May the road rise up to meet you, and may the wind be at your back.

Online Radio

For those of you looking for some different music or stuff that you've never heard before, try Pandora. It's a free service, and I've heard some very good stuff on it. Just to give you an idea of how it works: You type in the band you want to hear, they find a station that plays that band, as well as other bands that are similar. Somehow after typing in "Emerson, Lake, and Palmer" I came across a band called Aphrodite's Child, featuring Vangelis. Never heard them before, and they turned out to be pretty good. As a result, I'm ordering one of their CDs from Amazon.

Current pop music is awful, but there's a wealth of stuff from the past that I've never heard. If discovering old music is my way of discovering new music....well, good enough.

Let Us Take A Moment This November 4th....

To reflect upon the legacy of the Jimmy Carter era. Please note the person center-right in the photo: Current Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has been identified by five former hostages as having been a participant in the storming of and subsequent imprisonment of the American embassy personnel.

Thanks Jimmy! (You f*ckin' loser.)

Heard At A New York Rangers Game

A lackadaisical hockey performance at the last game I attended at the Garden resulted in one of the more clever chants/screams I've heard at a hockey game: "Old time hockey!!!!" To which someone else screamed "Eddie f*ckin' Shore!!!"

It was more of a cry for help than anything else. Those of you who've seen Slapshot know what these chants mean.

If

Recently was reminded of this work by Kipling. Worth the read.

Perhaps Kerry Can Try This Excuse....

I suppose it is as good as any.....

And while we're still on the subject, read the great Victor Davis Hanson's take below:

Kerryism

Kerry surely must be one of the saddest Democratic liabilities around. Some afterthoughts about his latest gaffe, which is one of those rare glimpses into an entire troubled ideology:

(1) How could John Kerry, born into privilege, and then marrying and divorcing and marrying out of and back into greater inherited wealth, lecture anyone at a city college about the ingredients for success in America? If he were to give personal advice about making it, it would have to be to marry rich women. Nothing he has accomplished as a senator or candidate reveals either much natural intelligence or singular education. Today, Democrats must be wondering why they have embraced an overrated empty suit, and ostracized a real talent like Joe Lieberman.

(2) How could Kerry possibly claim that he was thinking of the uneducated in the context of George Bush, who, after all, went to Harvard and Yale?

(3) Some of the brightest and most educated Americans are not only in the military, but veterans of Iraq. Two of the best educated minds I have met-Col. Bill Hix and Lt. Col. Chris Gibson, both Hoover Security Fellows-were both Iraqi veterans. What is striking about visiting Iraq is the wealth of talent there, from privates to generals. Without being gratuitously cruel, the problem of mediocrity is not in the ranks of the military, but on our university campuses, where half-educated professors and non-serious students killing time are ubiquitous. Personally, I'd wager the intelligence of a Marine Corps private any day over the average D.C. journalist. Every naval officer I met at the USNA, without exception, seemed brighter than John Kerry, whose "brilliance", after all, has managed to offend millions of voters on the eve of a pivotal election. If the Democrats lose, it will be almost painful to watch the recriminations against Kerry fly.

(4) This is not the first, but third, time he has denigrated soldiers in the middle of a war-and there is a systematic theme: John Kerry's assumed superior morality allows him to pass judgment from on high about supposedly lesser folk who become tools of a suspect military: thus we go from limb-loppers and Genghis' hordes to terrorists to dead-beats. The only constant is that the haughtiness is always delivered in the same sanctimonious, self-righteous, and patronizing tone.

(5) The mea culpa that Democrats are blaming the war and not the warriors is laughable after Sens. Durbin, Kennedy, and Kerry have collectively compared American soldiers to Nazis, Pol Pot's killers, Stalinists, terrorists, and Baathists.

(6) The problem is that Kerry is not just a senator, but the most recent presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, and thus in some sense, especially given the diminution of Howard Dean, the megaphone of the entire party.

(7) His pathetic clarification, as he blamed everyone from Tony Snow to Rush Limbaugh, displayed the same Al Gore derangement syndrome, and thus raises a larger question: what is it about George Bush that seems to reduce once sober and experienced liberal pros to infantile ranting?

(8) And why is the supposedly lame Bush so careful in speech, and the self-acclaimed geniuses like a Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or Howard Dean serially spouting ever more stupidities? For all the Democrats' criticism of George Bush, I can't think of a modern President who has so infrequently put his foot in his public mouth, and, by the same token, can't think of any opposition that on the eve of elections seems to have an almost pathological death wish.

The Democrats should use this occasion to have an autopsy of Kerryism, or this strange new tony liberalism, that has turned noblisse oblige on its head. It used to be that millionaire FDRs and JFKs felt sympathy for those of the lower classes and wished to ensure that the hoi polloi had some shot at the American dream. But today's elite liberals-a Howard Dean, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, Ted Turner-love the high life and playact at being leftists simply because they are already insulated from the effects of their own nostrums that always come at someone poorer's expense while providing them some sort of psychological relief from guilt. Poor Harry Truman must be turning over in his grave-from bourbon, cigars, and poker to wind-surfing and L.L. Bean costume of the day says it all.

Supporting Our Troops

by Mark Steyn

If you talk to Democrats of the middle-class and upper-middle-class and (in John Heinz Kerry’s case) the neo-Gulf-emir-class, you’ll have heard the same thing a thousand times: these poor fellows in Iraq, they’re only there because they’re too poverty-stricken and ill-educated so they couldn’t become Senators and New York Times reporters and tenured Queer Studies professors like normal Americans do. That is, in fact, what they mean by the claim that they “support our troops”: they want to bring them home and retrain them so they’re not forced into taking jobs as Bush’s torturers and thugs. It’s part of the same condescension as describing soldiers as “our children”. If a 22-year old intern wants to drop to the Oval Office broadloom, she’s a grown woman exercising her freedom of choice. But, if a 28-year old guy wants to serve in Iraq, he’s a poor wee misguided Grade Six drop-out who doesn’t know any better. John Kerry’s soundbite is interesting not because it’s the umpteenth self-inflicted wound by Mister Nuance but because it gets right to the heart of the Democrats’ “support” for the troops.

Cultural Churning

The term "churning" in broker parlance means buying and selling stocks merely to generate a commission, and is an action undertaken by a broker for the express purpose of augmenting their paycheck. It is never in the best interests of the client, and it inevitably leads to unnecessary losses in the client's account.

Given this terminology, I've come to a certain realization about American culture: it is churning itself. Specifically amongst the creative industries from which America entertains itself. Having been in the theatre district on the west side of Manhattan last night (to see the great and still electric Alice Cooper), I passed by the following Broadway plays: The Color Purple, Jersey Boys, and The Times Are A' Changin'. To those of you not terribly informed on these three plays, let me sum up: The Color Purple was a book made into a movie, and now into a Broadway play. Jersey Boys is the story of Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons, and Times is a Broadway play based on the music of Bob Dylan. In recent years, Broadway has had long running hits in the form of The Producers (based on the 60's movie, starring Gene Wilder), The Odd Couple (starring Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau in the movie version, Jack Klugman and Tony Randall in the television version), and Annie Get Your Gun (based off of an earlier Broadway play), Movin' Out (based on the music of Billy Joel). If you don't sense where I'm going with this, I'll clarify: Broadway producers have no interest in getting behind anything that doesn't already have automatic cultural recognition and already proven marketability. I certainly can understand this, as producing a Broadway play is one of the most speculative endeavors a venture capitalist can take up. But the end result is that, again, this is a form of churning. American culture has already discovered and enjoyed The Odd Couple, The Producers, and The Color Purple. What is the sense of turning a movie and/or a television show into a Broadway play when most people who are going to go see it have already seen it on the big/small screen several years before? The sense, clearly, is money. It certainly isn't creativity.

This hardly extends to Broadway. American cinema is littered with big budget movies, sprinkled with guaranteed marquee appeal via mediocre remakes of movies past. Of course, there's always the three or four sequels that come out from a successful movie (Saw I,II,III; Batman (five or six sequels), Superman, The Fantasic Four (sequel currently in production). Heck, they even remade The Manchurian Candidate (it was awful....the sequel, that is). Solomon once said there's nothing new under the sun. Ain't that the truth.

Then, of course, we have music....an absolute wasteland of retreaded riffs, lyrics, subject matter, guitars, amps, and poses. I can't even get into rap because to call it unlistenable is an insult to unlistenable music. Ornette Coleman was unlistenable, but at least he was original. Listening to sheet metal cut by a buzz-saw...that's unlistenable. All these are preferable to listening to, say, DMX or Ludacris. But...I digress.

This all crystallized in my mind the last 24 hours because I realized after seeing Alice Cooper last night that the man is still viable, still writes catchy, deviant heavy pop, and he puts on a wholly original, fun, rockin' show. Alice can't fill Madison Square Garden thirty-three years after his apex, but he still has enough appeal to fill Roseland Ballroom with two or three thousand sickos. (Like myself and my brother.) Alice was a groundbreaker in his day, both musically and theatrically. So was Bowie, and so was Peter Gabriel. All three were primary movers in turning a rock concert into rock theatre, and all three had groundbreaking music. The question I have, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, is whether it is due to a lack of creativity on the part of the music business (and the theatre and movie businesses) that nothing pushes the boundaries anymore, or whether there are no more boundaries to be pushed. Has the soundscape of music been completely surveyed and accounted for? Are there no more original riffs to be had? Is there no more subject matter left to be explored? Are there no more voices, no more original chord progressions, to be put together? And on a wider scale, is there no more dramatic subject matter left to be explored?

Has music, theatre, and cinema finally confronted everything that can be confronted, written about, and played? Retread plays, music, and movies makes money for the suits, no doubt. But maybe, just maybe, they don't really have much of a choice in the matter; perhaps it is the "artists" who've let down the suits.

1956

October 23rd marks the 50th anniversary of the start of the Hungarian revolt against Soviet repression in 1956. This has particular resonance with me, as I've actually been to Budapest (in 2000) and felt and saw the long term ripple effect of this event. One cannot avoid it in Budapest, particularly on the Pest side of the Danube River. Building walls still bear the pock-marks of exploded artillary damage, as well as bullet holes from the fire-fights between Hungarian freedom-fighters* and the repressive Soviet Red Army sent there to crush them. It was a haunting city in that it was only emerging, even in 2000, from forty-five plus years of Soviet repression. This pictoral history tells the story of the Hungarian revolt of 1956.

*Just to clarify: one man's terrorist is not another man's freedom fighter. It's hard to say you're a freedom fighter when your ultimate goal is absolute power over the masses. Ergo, people like Che Guevara and/or Yassir Arafat were not "freedom fighters". They didn't fight for freedom; they fought for repression, power, and the ability to exploit the masses, not to give them a democratic, free life.

Sting Says "Rock Is Stale"; Spitfire Says "He's Right"

I've been decrying the utter lack of creativity and originality in rock for some time. Sting obviously agrees with me. For me, the last gasp of anything remotely creative in the rock idiom was probably the Grunge movement in the early 90's. That said, I think that Nirvana were the single most overrated band of the day.

Who Owns The Middle East?

Depends on who you ask. This map (very cool, by the way) tells the story of who controlled the Middle East dating back to 3000 B.C.

Back...Somewhat

Between vacation, recovery from said vacation, work, moving into a new apartment, and having little-to-no access to a computer (outside of work, of course), blogging has somehow fallen through the cracks in terms of "stuff to do". I'll try to rectify that in the coming weeks, as I'm in the process of getting a brand new Apple computer, as well as alot of household items, like garbage cans, furniture, lights, etc. That said, a quick breakdown of news, sports, music, and other "earth-shaking minutiae":

• Sometimes it is easy to forget how deeply Christian this nation is, but on my trip back from Cincinnati, I saw roadside billboards with Bible tracts at least five to six times per 200 miles. Living in NYC kind of gives one the impression that Christianity doesn't even exist, but it is encouraging that out in the "heartland" that there's still a strong faith in God. Five years ago I wouldn't have really paid it much mind, but 9/11 has changed my perspective on a number of things, not the least of which is our shared Judeo-Christian heritage here in America, and how important it is for us to remember who we are and how we got here. Bush has remarked that there is, perhaps, a "third Great Awakening" underway in this nation. Could be. And if there is, I'd say the Islamo-terrorist threat that is upon us is a primary reason why. If you care to find out about the history of "Great Awakenings" in the history of this nation, you can read about them here and here. Without these events, this nation would've never even materialized, much less seen the abolition of slavery, which was, for the most part, prompted by people the Left now scorns (i.e. evangelicals, as well as Christians of various other Protestant demonitions). Read about it here, here, and here.

• I'm a bit late to the party on this one, but former President Clinton's performance on Fox was quite an event. Many have speculated that his flip-out was contrived. I vehemently disagree. He may be quite an actor, but that was rage on his visage. He had to have known the question was coming, and he might've been champing at the bit to disgorge his pent-up rage, but I don't think his anger wasn't genuine; after all, the interview came about a week and a half after ABC's compelling Path to 9/11 docudrama, which didn't exactly paint Clinton's administration particularly well. The problem with Clinton is that, while I'm not a hater of the man, he's just plum full of sh*t. During his presidency, his prevarications didn't really bother me, because in the end, all politicians "gild the lilly" to some extent. But what Clinton fails to understand these days is that his canards can be easily disassembled through a mere click of a computer mouse. In the old days, one would have to go through a mountain of microfiche to check a politician's statements. But we're in the internet age, and Clinton's contentions don't stand up to scrutiny. Many bloggers and pundits have deconstructed Clinton's assertions for the last few weeks, so you can take it upon yourself to shop the internet for them; I'll not bore you with them given this circumstance. But Clinton's cowardice through the 90's, and his subsequenty efforts to re-write history has really made me reassess the man's presidency. I've written in the past that history unfolds years after the actual events. Things that seemed great at the time wind up looking awful years, or even decades later. Conversely, things that seemed awful at the time wind up looking much better through the prism of history. Lefties years back were fond of saying that Clinton left the White House with the highest approval rating of any exiting executive in history. Harry Truman left with perhaps the worst approval rating. In the end, who do you think history is going to favor?

• One of the more annoying sayings that people express is that "religion is responsible for all the killing and war through history." This is one of those insipid comments that people with no historical perspective make to make themselves sound smart and sophisticated. Of course, what these people always fail to take into account is the eighty years of slaughter that occurred at the hands of communists, who were atheists. I've had discussions with defenders of communism about this, and their default position is always that atheism is only an ancillary principle to the ideology. Nonsense. It is central to their ideology. To wit: "Our ancestors left us with the two most essential heritages, which are atheism and great unity", and "If we let all Chinese people listen to God and follow God, who will obediently listen to us [i.e. the CCP] and follow us?" These quotes were uttered by Chi Haotian, Secretary of Defense for the Red Chinese, in 2003. If you need to get an idea of what atheism, vis-a-vis communism, has cost the world in terms of human carnage, look at this graph.

• Recent concerts attended: Jeff Beck and (what's left of) The Who. To my mind, Jeff Beck smoked the venue, playing all of his greatest material (Led Boots, Star Cycle, Blue Wind, etc.) and brought out a band that absolutely rocked. My take on The Who is considerably less sanguine. Though I still love 'em (I saw them on the last tour with John Entwistle in 2000...a story in itself), I have to say that I didn't sense alot of energy coming off the stage. To me, the thrill is gone. I've resisted seeing them the last few tours since the passing of the great Entwistle on bass, and after having attended their show at Madison Square Garden, I have to say that I was probably right in resisting. Worth seeing, but only as a last hurrah.

• Well, the Yanks are in the playoff, as are the Mets. We might get another Subway Series here in NYC. Not exciting for the rest of the nation, but we dig 'em. Here's to hopin'!

On Vacation

Sorry 'bout the skint postings as of late. As usual, a combination of work schedule, drained energy, and moving into new digs as rendered me devoid of an original thought or idea. That said, I anticipate that I'll be posting with much more vigor and frequency in the coming weeks/months. Stay tuned for some fresh postings in the future in mid-September. I'll blog if I can, when I can. Cheers.

The Greatest Man of the 20th Century, On Islam

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
-Sir Winston Churchil l (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages
248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

Appeasement Begets...

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny. But alas, it is sad. Germany, socialist appeaser to the muslims (along with the French), gets targeted for an act of terror and can't quite fathom why. After all, when you add it all up, there's no reason why they would be targeted, right? Let's go through the checklist:

a.) Criticized and obstructed United States and British efforts to combat world-wide Islamo-terrorism: check.
b.) Killed six million Jews sixty years ago: check.*
c.) Didn't participate in the Iraqi expedition, and if anything, was openly hostile to it: check.
d.) Routinely preaches tolerance of Islam, and faults the U.S. for creating more Islamo-terrorism: check.

I could probably come up with another twenty, but you get the point. All of these things, the Germans surmised, would grant them immunity from the Islamic rage with all things non-Mohammedan. Like all appeasers, they have been proven wrong. Winston Churchill once said that appeasement as a policy was the same as feeding your friends to the crocodiles in the hopes that you'll be eaten last. Not exactly a winning strategy, ol' Winston was trying to say. Read about Germany's terrorist plot below:

Train bombing plot surprises Germany
By DAVID RISING, Associated Press WriterTue Aug 22, 6:19 PM ET

A Lebanese student suspected of planting a train bomb that failed to explode had contacts in Hamburg, authorities said Tuesday, the latest link to the northern port city where three of the Sept. 11 suicide pilots prepared for their attacks.

The planned attack here stunned Germans who thought the country's vehement opposition to the Iraq war would insulate it from becoming a terror target almost five years after the attacks on Washington and New York.

The main suspect, identified by authorities as 21-year-old Youssef Mohamad el Hajdib, was arrested Saturday in Kiel, about 30 miles north of Hamburg, on suspicion of placing one of two suitcase bombs in German trains on July 31.

On Tuesday, federal prosecutors said they had identified a second key suspect, while police searched his Cologne apartment as well as addresses in Kiel and Oberhausen.

ZDF television showed police leading away one man in handcuffs after one of the raids, and said another person had also been detained.

However, prosecutors said a suspected bomber, whose name they did not release, remains at large.

The Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper cited investigators as saying the men were suspected of having contact with the radical Islamic movement Hizb-ut-Tahrir.

Authorities are investigating ties between the suspects and the Muslim community in Hamburg, where Sept. 11 suicide pilots Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah all lived undetected before moving to the United States to attend flight schools, said Manfred Murck, deputy head of the Hamburg state agency that tracks extremism.

"It seems like we do, once again, have some contacts to Hamburg, which is not really surprising," he said. "If somebody lives in Kiel and feels involved in the Islamist scene, it seems to be more or less plausible that he may have a friend or a mosque to visit in Hamburg."

Murck would not elaborate, saying only "we are working, of course, to find out what in our files can help us to identify possible contact persons."

German authorities were widely criticized for not picking up on the Sept. 11 plot, and stiffened counterterrorism laws in the wake of the attacks, though with police-state excesses of the country's Nazi past in mind, were wary of going too far.

While there have been other terrorism plots uncovered since Sept. 11, none has come so close to success.

"I have always said we are threatened by terrorism, and the threat has never been so near," Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble told ZDF television after el Hajdib's arrest, calling the case "unusually serious."

Where Germany before Sept. 11 was seen as a relatively comfortable base for terrorists to live and operate — but not a target — that is no longer the case, said Kai Hirschmann, deputy director of Essen's Institute for Terrorism Research and Security Policy.

"Intelligence agencies and police are now very much trying to arrest them ... and the scene is under constant surveillance," Hirschmann said.

Germany is also seen as being on the side of the U.S. and Britain, despite its opposition to the Iraq war, for helping train Iraqi police and military outside the country, taking a large role in operations in Afghanistan, and making other contributions to the so-called "war on terror," he said.

In the failed train bombings, the evidence points to poorly trained radicals not closely linked to terrorist networks, Hirschmann said.

The bombs were cobbled together from propane barbecue canisters to be triggered with gasoline and makeshift detonators that went off but failed to ignite the gas. They were found in suitcases on regional trains in Dortmund and Koblenz.

"It looked rather rushed or amateur. There might be some connection with the Islamist network, the jihad network, but not in the sense that we witnessed in Madrid or London," Hirschmann said, referring to the train bombings in Madrid and the London subway bombings.

Photojounalism In Crisis

Amid the controversy over certain pictures from Lebanon, a longtime student of war photography asks, "I'm not sure if the craft I love is being murdered, committing suicide, or both."

By David D. Perlmutter

(August 17, 2006) -- The Israeli-Hezbollah war has left many dead bodies, ruined towns, and wobbling politicians in its wake, but the media historian of the future may also count as one more victim the profession of photojournalism. In twenty years of researching and teaching about the art and trade and doing photo-documentary work, I have never witnessed or heard of such a wave of attacks on the people who take news pictures and on the basic premise that nonfiction news photo- and videography is possible.

I'm not sure, however, if the craft I love is being murdered, committing suicide, or both.

Perhaps it would be more reassuring if the enemy at the gates was a familiar one—politicians, or maybe radio talk show hosts. But the photojournalist standing on the crumbling ramparts of her once proud citadel now sees the vandal army charging for the sack led by “zombietime,” “The Jawa Report,” “Powerline,” “Little Green Footballs,” “confederateyankee,” and many others.

In each case, these bloggers have engaged in the kind of probing, contextual, fact-based (if occasionally speculative) media criticism I have always asked of my students. And the results have been devastating: news photos and video shown to be miscaptioned, radically altered, or staged (and worse, re-staged) for the camera. Surely “green helmet guy,” “double smoke,” “the missiles that were actually flares,” “the wedding mannequin from nowhere,” the “magical burning Koran,” the “little girl who actually fell off a swing” and “keep filming!” will now enter the pantheon of shame of photojournalism.

A few photo-illusions are probably due to the lust for the most sensational or striking-looking image—that is, more aesthetic bias than political prejudice. Also, many photographers know that war victims are money shots and some will break the rules of the profession to cash in. But true as well is that local stringers and visiting anchors alike seem to have succumbed either to lens-enabled Stockholm syndrome or accepted being the uncredited Hezbollah staff photographer so as to be able to file stories and images in militia-controlled areas.

It does not help that certain news organizations have acted like government officials or corporate officers trying to squash a scandal. The visual historian in me revolts when an ABC producer informs me that Reuters “deleted all 920 images” by the stringer who produced the “Beirut double smoke” image and is “less than willing to talk about it.” Can you say “18-minute gap,” anyone?

There is one great irony here. From a historical perspective, this is the golden age of photojournalistic ethics. In previous eras wild retouching, rearranging, cutting of images and even staging and restaging of events for the camera were commonly accepted in the trade. As someone who has written a history of images of war, I can testify there is more honesty in war photography today than ever in the past in any medium or any war--but there is, of course, much more scrutiny as well.

The main point is that we are now at a social, political and technological crossroads for media—amateur, industrial, and all points and persons in between. First, we live in Photoshop-CGI culture. People are accustomed to watching the amazing special effects of modern movies, where it seems any scene that can be imagined can be pixilated into appearing photorealistic. On our desktop, many of us are photoshopping our lives, manipulating family photos with ease.

In addition, in a digital-Internet-satellite age, any image on the Web can be altered by anyone into any new image and there is no “original,” as in a negative, to prove which was first. The icons are sacred no longer. Finally, there are the bloggers: the visual or word journalist is not only overseen by a familiar hierarchy of editors or producers but by many independents who will scan, query, trade observations, and blast what they think is an error or manipulation to the entire world.

News picture-making media organizations have two paths of possible response to this unnerving new situation. First, they can stonewall, deny, delete, dismiss, counter-slur, or ignore the problem. To some extent, this is what is happening now and, ethical consideration aside, such a strategy is the practical equivalent of taking extra photos of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The second, much more painful option, is to implement your ideals, the ones we still teach in journalism school. Admit mistakes right away. Correct them with as much fanfare and surface area as you devoted to the original image. Create task forces and investigating panels. Don’t delete archives but publish them along with detailed descriptions of what went wrong. Attend to your critics and diversify the sources of imagery, or better yet be brave enough to refuse to show any images of scenes in which you are being told what to show. I would even love to see special inserts or mini-documentaries on how to spot photo bias or photo fakery—in other words, be as transparent, unarrogant, and responsive as you expect those you cover to be.

The stakes are high. Democracy is based on the premise that it is acceptable for people to believe that some politicians or news media are lying to them; democracy collapses when the public believes that everybody in government and the press is lying to them.

And what of future victims of war? Will the public deny them their sorrows because we will dismiss all smoking rubble and dead children as mere digital propaganda?

Photojournalism must live, but not if its practitioners and owners are determined to jump into the abyss.

The Real War ...

…one more time.

By Michael Ledeen

Watching the war in Lebanon and listening to the debate about it, is just like watching the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its attendant debate. Israelis are demanding the resignation of Olmert, just as Americans are demanding the head of Bush. Israeli military experts, real and self-proclaimed, are explaining how the Lebanon war could have been won, if only the ground campaign had started earlier, or had been more ambitious. American strategists of varying competence are explaining how the Iraq war could have been won, if only there were more boots on the ground, or if only a different strategy had been employed, or if only the Baathist army had been kept intact.
I think it’s nonsense. Both campaigns and both debates suffer from the same narrow focus, the same failure of strategic vision, the same obsession with a single campaign in a single place, when the war itself — the real war — is far wider. Our leaders and our pundits are fighting single battles, and, since their strategies are not designed to win the real war, they are doomed to fail. The failure of strategic vision is not unique to politicians, or pundits, or military strategists; it seems common to them all. It is extremely rare to hear an authoritative voice addressing the real war.

The terror masters in Syria and Iran are waging a regional war against us, running from Afghanistan and Iraq to, Gaza, Israel, and Lebanon. Alongside the ground war in the Middle East, they are conducting fifth-column operations against us from Europe to India and on to Indonesia, Australia, and the United States; the plot just dismantled in Great Britain provides the latest evidence.

Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah by fighting in Lebanon alone, just as we cannot provide Iraq and Afghanistan with decent security by fighting only there. The destruction of Hezbollah requires regime change in Damascus. Security in Iraq and Afghanistan requires regime change in Damascus and Tehran. Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, and Afghanistan are not separate conflicts. They are battlefields in a regional war.

Even if the Israelis had conducted a brilliant campaign that killed every single Hezbollah terrorist in Lebanon, it would only have bought time. The Syrians and Iranians would have restocked, rearmed and resupplied the Hezbollahis, and prepared for the next battle. But if the Assad regime were replaced with a government opposed to terrorism and committed to freedom, Hezbollah would die of logistical starvation, cut off from money, weapons, training facilities, and the crucial support of Syrian and Iranian military and intelligence organizations.

In like manner, even if we continue to win every battle in every region of Iraq and Afghanistan, we will only prolong the fighting. The Iranians and their various allies inside Iraq, from the Baathist remnant to the Sadrists to Hezbollah, Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and other foreign terrorists, would continue to infiltrate the country, buy agents within Iraq, develop new generations of IEDs and smuggle ever more accurate rockets and missiles to use against us and the Iraqi forces of order. They will do the same in Afghanistan. But if the mullahcracy is replaced by a government empowered by the tens of millions of pro-American and pro-democracy people now oppressed by the evil terror masters in Tehran, the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan would be quickly transformed into a manageable operation with the balance of power overwhelmingly on the side of the governments.

The longer we wait, the larger the real war becomes. Iran has been at war with us for 27 years and we have yet to respond. As time passes, and our fecklessness is confirmed, the mullahs’ confidence grows. Surely they must believe that their moment has come, that we will never respond, that they can bloody us and force us to retreat. That is the clear lesson of Lebanon, and they are undoubtedly raising the stakes for the next round. The Iranian missiles used against Israeli warships off the coast of Lebanon are now pouring into Somalia, and will be used against our ships in one of the most strategically sensitive areas of the world economy. The clandestine network rolled up in London surely extends to this country, and it is only a matter of time until they get lucky. Just a few weeks ago, the Germans fortunately discovered powerful bombs on their railroads. The French found similar weapons a couple of years ago. The Italians have arrested 40 people, are expelling many others, and have more than a thousand under surveillance.

These are the outlines of future events in the real war. We have a president who, despite his many weaknesses, speaks as if he understands it. But we have a secretary of state who speaks and acts as if she did not, a secretary of defense who has manifestly failed to grasp the true strategic dimensions of our peril, and an intelligence community that is still obsessed with the failed theories of the recent past, notably the nonsense about the unbridgeable Sunni-Shiite conflict. The president has finally begun to speak the truth about Islamic fascists, but he has yet to level with the American people about the magnitude of the real war, and ask them to support a strategy for victory.

That strategy does not, even today, require greatly expanded military action against the terror masters. Our most potent weapon against them remains the rage and courage of their own peoples. We must support those people, we must openly call and work for regime change in Syria and Iran. Heartbreakingly and foolishly, our failure to support revolution makes military action more and more likely. If we do not do the logical and sensible things, if we do not deploy the massive political weapons at our disposal, we will end by doing terrible things. Or, shrinking from the consequences of such action, we will suffer defeat, and the world will be plunged into a darkness the likes of which any civilized person must dread.

Faster, please.

— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.

Media Manipulators....and the Jew-Hating Media Who Love Them

It has been an interesting couple of days regarding the Israel-Hezbollah war. Keeping track of the media's coverage, I've noted two things: the exaggerated display of Lebanese war dead, and the complete lack of coverage of Israeli civilian dead. Strange, no?

No. It isn't strange. The new alliance of the Left is with the Jew-hating muslim terrorist groups that seek to extinguish Israel as an entity. And their media enablers are doing their darndest to make sure that world opinion remains firmly against Israel. Remember the photo of the green-helmeted man carrying the child, which made the front pages of every newspaper from New York to Paris (and beyond)? Check this link out, and you'll realize that this man was displaying the corpses for show in one of the most disgusting, macabre displays of media manipulation I've ever personally seen.

Then, of course, there's Reuters, the left-wing media outlet that refuses to label Hezbollah or al Qaeda "terrorists". (They say they don't want to take sides....) Well, turns out that Reuters has been running "photoshopped" pics of Beirut in an attempt to make it look considerably more decimated that it actually is. Little Green Footballs, the folks who keyed in on Dan Rather's fraudulent Bush/National Guard documents, has the goods here.

I will end this post by once again praising God that the internet exists. The dissemination of information is no longer the domain of left-wing demogogues. We're on to you!

Hezbollah, And By Extension Iran and Syria, Are Responsible For EVERY Lebanese Death

The abject cowardice with which the Mohammedan jihadists wage their terror campaign against the Israeli people is a sight to behold. Were it not for the internet, they in all likelihood would win, yet again, the propaganda war against Israel. But times have changed, and technology has caught up with them; stories a compliant, left-wing, anti-Israeli press would suppress can no longer be quashed. This link, complete with pictures, tells the story. The three pictures attached to this story see Hezbollah fighters, dressed not as combatants of any kind, but in casual civilian-wear, and carrying out their operations in residential neighborhoods. Being fully aware that the retribution from the IDF and the IAF will target their position, they seek to maximize the civilian casualty numbers, then play it off as if the Israelis are responsible and are deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians. This couldn't be further from the truth. Additionally, Hezbollah is specifically targeting Israeli civilians with their indiscriminate shelling of Israeli cities. I eschew Nazi comparisons normally, but as someone who happens to know more about Nazis than most, I can tell you that these are Nazi tactics. During the London Blitz, Hitler pounded London for 57 straight nights, even though London had no strategic significance. The operation was strictly to maximize civilian casualty figures and break the morale of the English. However, I can find no trace of Hitler ever preventing German (or French, or Belgian, or any other) civilian populations from getting the hell out of a combat zone in areas that were under German control. The Mohammedans have no such principles.

As for Kofi Annan and his eruption of Jew hatred (claiming that the IDF deliberately killed four U.N. observers in Lebanon), I think it is high-time that Annan:

a.) Apologize to Israel for the slander, and
b.) Resign and retire on his oil-for-food kickbacks.

What Kofi Annan neglected to say was that the U.N. "observers" and Hezbollah have been chummy for a every long time and inhabit the same acreage in Lebanon. No doubt, Hezbollah had to have known that if they shelled Israel from these positions, there was an off chance that the IDF/IAF would strike back at that position. Thus, the best possible outcome occurred:
The Israelis killed four U.N. observers, thus ensuring a PR nightmare for Israel.

Of course, when you see a photo of Annan and Hezbollah leader Nasrallah getting cozy with each other, it all makes sense, doesn't it....

Then there is Iran, who are probably smiling from ear to ear over their proxy army's fight with Israel. This conflagration between Hezbollah and Israel has taken their nuke program off the front pages for the last two weeks. This is no coincidence.

Oh Well....

"The truth is — let me say this clearly — we didn't even expect (this) response ... that (Israel) would exploit this operation for this big war against us," said deputy chief of the Hezbollah's political arm, Mahmoud Komati.

He said Hezbollah had expected "the usual, limited response" from Israel.

In the past, he said, Israeli responses to Hezbollah actions included sending commandos into Lebanon, seizing Hezbollah officials and briefly targeting specific Hezbollah strongholds in southern Lebanon.

A Window of Opportunity

The war against the terror masters redux.

By Michael Ledeen

9/11 happened when Osama bin Laden looked at us, and thought we were ready to be had. We were politically divided, and squabbling over everything. We clearly were not prepared to take casualties in direct combat. The newly elected president seemed unable to make a tough decision. And so Osama attacked, expecting to deliver a decisive blow to our national will, expecting we would turn tail and run, as we had in Somalia, and expecting he would then be free to concentrate his energies on the defeat of local apostates, the creation of his caliphate, and the organization of Muslim revenge for the catastrophes of past centuries.

Within a few months he was driven out of Afghanistan, his organization was shattered, the Arab street he had hoped to mobilize was silenced by the shock and awe of the total victory of the Americans, and he became an instrument of forces greater than himself. If he still lives, he is the servant of the Shiite mullahs, making propaganda movies and audiotapes to bolster the morale of the constantly shrinking number of his admirers, while the mullahs order his followers to martyr themselves against Iraqi civilians.

He had earned his humiliation by misunderestimating his enemy.

He would no doubt recognize the similarities between his own disastrously wrong analysis, and the Iranian blunders leading up to the sequence of events in Gaza and northern Israel. As on 9/11, we, along with our Israeli allies, were internally divided, indeed far more so than in 2001. As on 9/11, there was broad and deep public opposition to war, and both our and Israeli leaders had seemingly lost the will to fight, talking openly about exit strategies and negotiated settlements.

In Israel, the hated Sharon was on life support, gone forever from public life, and succeeded by a man of lesser charisma and limited military experience. The political class drifted from withdrawal to withdrawal. Hezbollah lobbed missiles into northern Israel, totally without response in kind, and Olmert proclaimed yet further withdrawals.

In America, the hated Bush was at record lows in public opinion, daily excoriated by the major media, and constantly criticized by European leaders buoyed by polls showing their electors’ utter contempt for America and the American president. Indeed, the Europeans had protected Iran from any possibility of American action against the regime in Tehran by playing along with a patently phony negotiating strategy.

Who could imagine a forceful response against most any escalation in the mullahs’ long war against the infidels and crusaders? There was not even a rhetorical response to the daily panegyrics from Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, Larijani and the others, calling for death to the Jews, death to the Americans, death to the Iraqi collaborationists, death to the apostate Muslims wherever they were.

The auguries — and the Persians are a superstitious people — were generally good. In some cases, spectacularly good. Fanatics with Iranian support, for example, had overrun Somalia,, and there was good reason to believe the new government would constitute a valuable staging base for terrorists and for Iranian military operations against the American fleet in the Gulf. Throughout the Muslim world, Ahmadinejad was like a rock star, drawing huge crowds wherever he went, even so far away as Indonesia. A demonstration of strength against the greater and lesser Satans in the Middle East would greatly enhance his appeal. And the legions of death now amounted to 23 terrorist groups, plus the obedience of their Syrian puppet, Bashir Assad.

Moreover, escalation was required to address some annoying problems. Demonstrations continued to break out across Iran itself, involving virtually all elements of the country’s diverse population. A show of strength, and above all of American impotence, would weaken the resolve of the mullahs’ enemies. Elsewhere, Hamas was having a tough time in Palestine, and the hasty migration of top leaders to Damascus — obviously concerned about their physical well-being — was not the sort of triumphal message one wanted sent to the Islamist masses. Then there was Iraq, where most of the people were openly hostile to Tehran, and where Ayatollah Sistani continued to exercise a substantial gravitational pull on millions of Iranians. Despite several efforts, the mullahs had been unable to have him assassinated. Nor had the thousands of intelligence agents and military officers sent from Iran to Iraq been able to catalyze a civil war, despite spreading around millions of dollars and hundreds of martyrs among all the ethnic and religious groups.

Finally, there was the Divine Message, the promise that the End of Days would soon be upon mankind, and the Hidden Imam would emerge from the bottom of his well, lead the believers to victory, and command the planet. The description of the moment of his return was well known: a time of chaos and suffering, that could be accelerated by the faithful if they were brave enough.

Not, then, the tactical thinking described by so many — distracting world attention from the nuclear standoff, now headed for the U.N. — but something of an entirely greater order of magnitude. Omar, the insightful blogger at “Iraq the Model,” sees it in the streets of Baghdad:

We are seeing some signs here that make us think that Iran and its tools in Iraq are trying to provoke the rise of the imam through forcing the signs they believe should be associated with that rise. One of the things that do not feel right is the sudden appearance of new banners and writings on the walls carrying religious messages talking specifically of imam Mehdi. These messages are getting abundant in Baghdad and in particular in the eastern part of the capital where Sadr militias are dominant and a special number can be seen in the area of the interior ministry complex.

The interesting part is that these banners appeared within less than 24 hours after Hizbollah kidnapped the Israeli soldiers. Coincidence? I don't think so.

And so they struck, first in Gaza, then in northern Israel, and, as always, in Iraq and Afghanistan and India. They imagined, just as Osama had prophesied five years earlier (almost to the Muslim day; according to their calendar Wednesday the 19th was the anniversary of our 9/11), that the regional assault would bring our allies and us to our knees. We would lose our will to fight, and abandon the battlefield to the army of Allah, and Hamas, and Moqtada, and the Badr brigades, and all the others.

It’s the same misunderestimation as before, for tyrants have always been unable to imagine the remarkable ability of free people to respond to challenge, and to organize quickly, voluntarily, and effectively to fight their enemies. Hwzbollah now risks rout, and Assad, sensing his peril, is whispering promises of betrayal in order to ensure his own survival. The Iranians still threaten Armageddon, but, so far at least, have been unable to demonstrate the capacity to provoke it.

A fine line separates charisma from buffoonery, and, instead of spreading revolutionary hegemony over the region, the mullahs risk being seen as unacceptably dangerous clowns. Never before have Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Kuwaitis, and Iraqis spoken so forcefully against the terrorists (Hamas and Hezbollah, Sunni and Shiite) and their state sponsors in Tehran and Damascus. Instead of driving us from the battlefield, they now must contend with the very real danger that their former prey will unite against the mullahs and the Baathist remnant.

The terror masters risk the same terrible humiliation and defeat as befell Osama, and as things stand, only we can save them from the logical and moral consequences of their folly.

Stranger things have happened, and powerful forces within this peculiar administration are striving mightily to preserve the Iranian and Syrian regimes. To be sure, they do not exactly put it that way. They sing the chorus of crackpot realism: Preserve stability; focus on the immediate problem (Hezbollah); let the professionals do their diplomatic work. Then there are the brief stanzas set aside for the mellow voices of the CIA (joined on this occasion by Thomas Friedman, chanting yet another peace-initiative-for-the-innocents): Syria has always helped us; Assad is young; he will improve; we have friends in Damascus; if he falls the terrorists will take over; let us work with him.

It now lies to President Bush to decide. We must hope that he is not charmed. If he can now recall what he said after 9/11, that the world must make the stark choice of being with us or against us, and that those who support the terrorists will be treated as terrorists themselves, then the deadly logic of their failed attack will close around the throats of the terror masters. The battle against Hezbollah is part of the broader war, as the mullahs well understood when they unleashed Nasrallah and Mughniyah against the Israelis. Israel is now conducting that battle; it is up to us to prosecute the rest of the war.

Now is the time to tell our soldiers in Iraq that “hot pursuit” is okay, that the terrorist training camps on both sides of Iraq are legitimate targets, to be attacked in self-defense. Now is the time to tell the Iraqi government to come forward with the abundant evidence of Iranian evil-doing, and that we will support a fight against the mullahs’ foot soldiers in Iraq. These actions will signal the next stage of the war against the terror masters, which is the vigorous support of the pro-democracy forces in Syria and Iran.

It is a wondrous window of opportunity. As so often in our history, it was opened by our enemies. Let’s go for it.

Now, please. It may not open again for quite a while.


— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute

Unintentional Funny Quote of the Day

Courtesy of Howard Dean, the man who can rightly be called "the gift that just keeps on giving":

"If you think what's going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn't, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn't get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when he brought together the Northern Irish and the IRA, when he brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

Who Came First....Ron Burgundy Or Dan Rather?

Dan Rather, obviously. But if you read this article, you get the idea that Will Ferell's Ron Bergundy character in Anchorman was inspired, in no small part, by the likes of Dan Rather. Here's a snippet to whet your whistle (too funny for words):

“Sometimes I’ve had people tell me, ‘Dan, this is not healthy for your career,’” he added. “Well, my answer to that is, to hell with the career. I didn’t get into journalism as a careerist. I’m not going to go out of journalism as a careerist. So yes, I’m biased about doing independent journalism. And you bet I’m prejudiced. I’m prejudiced toward reporters — and America is filled with reporters who want to do the right thing...News, real news, is a wake-up call, not a lullaby. And I’m not in the lullaby business.”

Oooh....Dan. You're so brave, sticking your neck out there all these years! Of course, Rather still claims that the Bush National Guard documents (which were a fraud) haven't been proven to be forgeries, so his hoary pronouncements about his independence and his crusading news style all dovetail nicely into his pompous character.

Read the article. 'Tis a hoot.

Since I Happen To Be Talking About Drummers....

....I figured I'd share with you a funny anecdote.

My friend Evan, a great drummer in his own right, was living in Virginia for a time. He had several drum students. One of whom he had was a 13 yr. old kid who, though he was technically proficient and diligent in his drum studies, hit the drums "like a p**ssy". (His words.) Communicating this issue to me over the phone, I asked Evan if this kid eats red meat. He said he didn't know (how would he?), but he'd ask. I told him he could probably fix this problem with his student if he got him on a red meat diet. (Better to amp up male aggression, didn't you know?) Evan mentioned to this kid's father that he should get his kid to eat more red meat, as it would help him with his drumming.

Week or two later, the kid comes in for his lesson. He's beating the crap out of the drums. The difference in attack is palpable. Evan asks the kid what he's doing differently. The kid says nothing. Evan asks him about his diet. The kid says his father is making him eat steak and hamburger every night, and he doesn't understand why.

Still the best piece of advice I ever gave someone.

Drummers

I attended a house party last night with a friend in Red Hook, Brooklyn. Featured at this party were two bands, one of whom I arrived too late to have seen (I heard they were awful). But I did catch the second band. Not terribly compelling, this second band did have some sense of melody and an ever-so-slight trace of imagination. But one thing they didn't have was a good drummer. The guy they had playing was awful. Later in the night I spoke to a fellow who was involved with the aforementioned band at one point, but no longer was. He said that he was actually a drummer himself, but was playing keyboards with them (for some reason). When their original drummer left, he wanted to switch to his natural instrument, but the band said they wanted to bring in their friend instead. Their friend, it so happens, had no training on the drums at all. As of last night, he'd only been playing for six months. Supposedly, he'd made "great progress" over the last six months. Not enough for me. He was awful in every way: behind the beat, unimaginitve, no feel. He was excrutiating to listen to.

I make no bones about the fact that I'm a music snob. I come from the school of thought that you should have some semblance of self-awareness regarding your capabilities before you go out in public and perform. I'm not condemning in totality the punk rock movement of the late 70's, but it did do something thoroughly detrimental to the musical ethos that said that you should master your instrument before venturing out into performance. The punk rock philosophy was essentially that the better you are, the more disgusting you are. The original bass player of the Sex Pistols, Glen Matlock, got himself kicked out of the band (despite being the author of all of their songs) because he was "too good....he knew all these fancy chords and he liked the Beatles". The long-term damage this attitude has done to live music is palpable, and it was on display last night at this party. I didn't need to talk to the band members in question to know that they probably had the attitude that their "art" was more important than having proficiency on their instruments. If they didn't think that, they wouldn't have brought their "friend" into the band to play drums. They would've gotten themselves a competent player instead.

A few years back it dawned on me that almost every band that I love has a highly competent, imaginitive drummer as their rhythmic lynchpin: The Who, The Police, Rush, Yes (both drummers, though I like Bruford better), ELP, Genesis, Kansas, to name a few. Even Ringo Starr of The Beatles, no Buddy Rich he, had tremendous imagination. (Listen to "Ticket to Ride" or "Tomorrow Never Knows" for examples of this; those beats are COOL, imaginitive, and highly original.) Another example of this would be the Smashing Pumpkins, who's drummer (Jimmy Chamberlain) was a steamroller of a drummer: technically proficient, energetic, strong, if not terribly innovative.

I hope I'm wrong about this, but it seems as if the day of the kick-ass drummer is over, or at least dormant. Between drum machines and this punk attitude pervading up-and-coming bands, I'm not hearing alot out there, either in the clubs or on the radio.

Where have you gone, Keith Moon? The rock and roll nation turns its lonely eyes to you....

Proof (Yet Again) That Supply-Side Economics Works

The New York Times must've caused themselves a great deal of agita going to print with this headline:

Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

Ouch! You mean you can actually take in more money by having lower taxes than higher ones?!? What a novel concept! Well....not to those of us who know the hows and whys of supply-side economics (also known as "trickle down economics"). Let me explain to those of you who aren't quite clear how this works:

Businessman A owns a Subchapter S corporation (which means that all the company's profits are counted as his personal, direct income) and makes $500,000 a year. Under the Clinton tax brackets, he got taxed federally at 39.5%, not counting state and local taxes. Then, in 2001, his income tax is lowered from 39.5% to 35%, meaning he gets to keep more of his income...$22,500 more, to be exact. What is businessman A going to do with this money, you ask? Well, he could do a few things. He could a.) invest it back into his company, meaning he'd have buy some more stuff, which creates revenues for another company that he does business with, since he's buying their merchandise, b.) hire a new employee, which would create more tax revenues for the federal government, since that employee will get taxed as well, c.) invest it personally, either into a CD (which creates taxable interest), or even a mutual fund (which also creates capital gains and interest income, all of which are taxed). The only place that Businessman A could put the money where it WOULDN'T create more tax revenues for the government is in a safe-deposit box or under his mattress.

That, my friends, is supply-side economics in a nutshell. The more money you keep, the more you spend. And the more you spend, the more somebody gets taxed.

However, the geniuses at the Times (note the underlying sarcasm) seemed genuinely amazed that such a concept actually works. To wit:

"An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief."

"Unexpected"? Not to this guy.

Someone should force Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Bill Keller, and their resident "economist" Paul Krugman to read Milton Friedman, because obviously, they still don't have even the slightest clue as to how economics work, particularly supply-side, Laffer Curve economics.

Duh.

Fun Fourth of July Facts

Though the Fourth is generally regarded as the day the Declaration of Independence was ratified and signed, this is not the case. The motion for independence was ratified on July 2nd, whereas the final document was ratified on July 4th. All the necessary signatories didn't add their names to it until weeks after. John Adams, more responsible than any other colonial delegate for the ultimate vote to break away from Great Britain, wrote this in one of his letters to his wife, Abigail:

"The second day of July 1776 will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward forever more."

Thomas Jefferson's original draft was cut down and/or changed significantly by approximately 25%, according to author David McCullough. Sitting next to Benjamin Franklin on July 3 and 4 as Franklin removed or changed significant pieces of the document, Jefferson "is not known to have uttered a word in protest, or in defense of what he had written. Later he would decribe the opposition to his draft as being like 'the ceaseless action of gravity weighing upon us night and day'."

Jefferson's original draft actually blamed George III for the slave trade, which was promptly extricated for any number of reasons, among them that a.) Jefferson himself owned a plethora of slaves, b.) a large amount of the Continental Congress owned slaves, and c.) George IIII didn't start slavery, and it was silly to say that he did, particularly in so important a document. That said, the slavery issue hung over the revolutionary delegates' heads. In the end, they punted on the issue. The roots of the abolition movement can be traced to before the Declaration of Independence, but the time for abolition had not come. Eighty years later, it would.

John Adams was also intimately involved in the editorial process of the Declaration. Gone from the document, vis-a-vis Adams, were Jeffersonian flights of bathos, such as: "These facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren...we must endeavor to forget our former love for them. We might've been a free and great people together". But the one phrase, mostly Jeffersonian, but with small touches from Adams, was this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Happy Independence Day.

World Cup

I made an effort, perhaps for the first time in my life, to watch a World Cup match end-to-end. I've never been much of a soccer fan, but I figured, as I've been compelled to do by various pro-soccer advocates, to give it a chance. I did....and the same gripes that I've had about the game since I was a kid (too slow, not enough scoring chances, etc.) all came back to me. But I also came another conclusion about soccer: the utter lack of sportsmanship exhibited amongst the players. Let me explain....

Having grown up watching mostly baseball and hockey, there is a certain etiquette that goes along with winning. There's also a certain behavior that should be observed when it comes to injuries, both minor and major. Soccer has none of them. For example, whilst watching the Portugal/England match, I noticed that almost every player that went down due to a legal or illegal trip writhed in agony as if having been shot. I consequently found myself screaming at the television, "Get the f**k up, you f**king p**y!!!" after a while. (My latent crudities come to the surface whilst watching sports; I otherwise attempt to keep them in check.) In hockey, this is called "diving", and it is looked down upon with contempt. Before the wave of Europeans invaded North American hockey, this type of behavior was rare, and a "diver" was an object of derision throughout the league, even on his own team. European players, perhaps schooled in the soccer ethos predicated on making the most minor of collisions appear as abject acts of evil (with excrutiating physical agony the end result), brought this ethos into the sport. Thirty years after Swedish defenseman Borje Salming entered into the NHL as the first European player in North American professional hockey, the NHL has instituted a two-minute minor penalty for diving. This would've never had to have been implemented during the Rocket Richard/Gordie Howe era, but there you go. I can't say that all European players are guilty of this type of behavior, as there are some genuinely tough ones that follow the North American hockey ethos of playing 'til you need to go to the hospital, but unfortunately there are too many Europeans that cry over minimal contact. In soccer, that's not only not penalized, it's rewarded. Ugh.

Churchill On Secrecy During Wartime

"The truth is to be protected by a bodyguard of lies."

[How far we strayed, eh?]